Article II: On the Change of Matter and Form

St. Thomas III, q. 60, a. 7 and 8.

19. Notions. - It must be noted beforehand:

1. that the determination of matter and form was not left to the choice of men, as is clear from the preceding article, but was made by Christ or, perhaps partially, by the Church, but in such a way that they cannot be changed by the minister;

2. that in matter and form there is distinguished the essential part, without which the essence of the sacrament does not subsist and the sacrament is not valid; and the perfecting or merely integral part, which concurs in constituting the sacrament, without which nevertheless it is valid, but imperfect or incomplete, for example satisfaction in fact with respect to Penance, the anointing of the feet in Extreme Unction, the words: in the name of the Father... for the form of absolution.

20. Principles. - I. A change made deliberately by the minister with the intention of changing the essentials of the sacramental rite renders the sacrament invalid, even if a legitimate rite remains, because the minister does not seem to have the intention of doing what the Church does.

II. Every essential change in matter or form renders the sacrament invalid. An essential change is present:

1. When the matter which is employed, according to the common usage and estimation of men, does not agree in the same ratio and name with the essential matter which the Church employs, even if perhaps physically it does not differ, for example if wine or ice is taken in place of water.

This can happen¹ a) by defect of completion, if the matter is not yet perfect for natural use, for example raw bread;

¹ On these things cf. Cappello, cited work I, n. 22.

b) by corruption, if the matter has lost its former nature, for example moldy bread or vinegar;

c) by admixture of another matter, so that from the very nature of the thing or from the estimation of men there is held to be a certain new matter, and not the former matter, for example if barley is mixed with wheat in great quantity.

2. When the very sense of the form is corrupted.

This happens: a) if the words have a sense diverse from the sense intended by the Church, for example if someone were to say: hic (adverbially) est corpus; I baptize in the name of the mother;

b) if they are pronounced with a great interruption, so that morally they do not seem to cohere: the interruption of syllables much more easily changes the sense than the interruption of words; whence in practice the word begun is to be repeated unless there is a very slight interruption;

c) if they are pronounced separately by several persons, or by him who does not place the matter when this is to be applied to the subject;

d) if the essentials are omitted partially, for example for Baptism: te, in the name of the Father.

III. On the contrary, an accidental change does not render the sacrament invalid. An accidental change is present:

1. When the matter, according to the common estimation, remains the same, but some accident of it is changed contrary to the precept of the Church or the reverence of the sacrament, for example if someone without necessity baptizes in water not blessed or turbid.

2. When a change in the form leaves the due sense.

This happens in several ways: a) by a mere change of language or by the use of several languages in the same form;

b) by transmutation of words into words that are altogether synonymous from common usage, for example: I wash thee, I cleanse thee;

c) by mere transposition of words or inversion of order, for example: I baptize thee, this is My body;

d) by a small interruption in pronunciation, provided the form remains morally one, for example if someone says: I baptize thee, be silent! in the name..., or if for a few moments he coughs or sneezes between the words;

e) by an addition which does not change the sense, for example: in the name of the Father the creator...; I commend thee to the Blessed Virgin Mary and I baptize thee...;

f) by subtraction of a word or syllable which is not of the essence: I, for;

g) by a small corruption or mutilation of a word from haste or stammering, for example: in nomine Patrias, et Filias..., copus, calis, e e ego.

IV. If the form is ambiguous or equivocal, so that, according to the common manner of speaking, it has a double sense, it depends on the intention of the minister whether the change is substantial or accidental, according as the form is uttered in the due sense or in a false sense.

Thus, for example: In the name of the Father and of the Daughter is a valid form if it is said thus from ignorance of the Latin tongue, but if it is said in order to introduce heresy it is invalid; - in the name of the greater Father and of the lesser Son... is valid in a Catholic sense, invalid in an Arian sense; - I baptize thee in the name of the Father, I baptize thee in the name of the Son, I baptize thee in the name of the Holy Spirit, if it is said to signify that the essence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not the same, is invalid; otherwise it is valid, as among certain sects which have the right intention of uttering it (Holy Office, January 11, 1882).

21. Corollaries. - From this follow the conclusions:²

² Cappello, cited place.

1. An error of the minister, if it is merely internal, does not invalidate the form, provided a right intention is present; but if it is manifested exteriorly, it must be seen whether the essential words of the form remain whole or not: in the first case the sacrament is valid, in the other invalid.

2. A depraved intention of the minister can induce a substantial change of the form, when the minister deliberately uses substantially erroneous or equivocal words.

3. It is not necessary that the words of the form present of themselves the sense intended by Christ; it is required and suffices that from the way in which they are here and now uttered, according to the common manner of receiving them, they suggest such a sense to the hearers.

4. Grammatical errors, generally speaking, do not induce a substantial change of the form, unless a plainly diverse sense arises from them, or unless the words result not merely corrupted but wholly diverse, as if you were to say: I am baptized in the name... This also holds concerning corruption by defect of tongue, or by ignorance or haste.

22. A change of the matter or form of the sacraments is a sin of sacrilege. - For it includes irreverence toward the sacraments; and indeed:

1. An essential change is a mortal sin from its whole genus, because a) it always contains grave irreverence toward the sacrament, of which it is a simulation and mockery, and toward Christ, in whose name one ministering thus would act and would do nothing; b) besides, it is a grave sin against charity toward neighbor, because he is defrauded of a notable spiritual good; and c) against justice, at least if the administration of the sacrament falls upon the minister from office, indeed always, because by the very fact that he voluntarily undertakes in himself the administration of the sacrament, by tacit contract he obliges himself to administer it validly and rightly, as far as he can.

2. An accidental change, outside a case of necessity, is a sin of sacrilege, mortal from its own genus, because there is in the Church a grave precept, laid down from reverence toward the sacraments, imposed upon ministers, that they not administer the sacraments except with the solemnity, language, grammatical form, and ceremonies instituted by the Church observed (Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 13); which precept, however, admits lightness of matter.

Hence a) if the change is notable, the sin will be grave; b) if the change is slight, the sin will be venial, as if some priest in private Baptism used the vernacular language, or from negligence corrupted the form somewhat; unless, however, he acted thus from contempt, with danger of erring in the substance, or with grave scandal of the faithful.

23. Practical rules. - I. Outside necessity, it is never lawful to use doubtful or probable matter or form, indeed even matter or form probably valid.

For the value of the sacraments depends on Him who instituted or determined the matter and form; but the doubt or probability, even greater probability, of an opinion cannot bring it about that matter and form which were not instituted have been instituted, that inept matter and form become apt, that, for example, that which is not water become water; therefore one who uses them exposes himself to the danger not of confecting but of simulating a sacrament, and at the same time of inflicting detriment on his neighbor. Whence just as he who makes a sacrament null sins mortally against religion and charity or justice, so also he who exposes himself to the same danger. Hence the proposition which asserted that it is lawful in conferring the sacraments to follow a probable opinion concerning the value of the sacrament, with the safer opinion abandoned, was condemned by Innocent XI.³

³ Proposition 1 among the condemned: "It is not illicit in conferring the sacraments to follow a probable opinion concerning the value of the sacrament, with the safer one abandoned, unless law, convention, or danger of incurring grave harm forbids it; hence an opinion only probable must not be used in the conferral of Baptism, priestly Order, or episcopal Order."

II. In a case of urgent necessity or of great utility, when it cannot be done otherwise, it is lawful to use doubtful matter or form, at least for a sacrament of necessity. Thus, for example, an infant in danger of death must be baptized in doubtful matter if no other is present; a dying man doubtfully disposed is to be absolved.⁴

⁴ Except the Eucharist, for which, on account of the danger of idolatry, it is never lawful to employ probably invalid matter, unless perhaps for completing the sacrifice.

The reason is that in such a case the minister does not expose himself to the danger, but rather permits it, and he does not do injury to his neighbor, since he bestows upon him what he can bestow. In this case, so that the reverence of the sacrament may be cared for in some way, and irreverence, as far as possible, be repaired, the sacrament is to be administered under a condition: if I can, or if thou art capable; which condition then sufficiently repairs the irreverence of the sacrament (cf. n. 84, 3 A).

We say: in some way, as far as possible. For by adding the condition, we are not able to remove from the sacrament every irreverence from the danger of nullity, even material irreverence; whence one who, in the case, would administer without sufficient necessity, or rashly repeat the sacrament, even under condition, would without doubt inflict grave injury upon it and would sin mortally, exposing himself without reason to the danger of doing nothing and of playing in a most grave matter: for if the reason is insufficient, it is judged not to be present, and the condition, if the doubt is empty, is held as not added. - But we add the condition so that we may declare that we act only under compulsion of necessity, and that we may better show and protest that we do not inflict voluntary irreverence upon the sacrament: "Therefore the reason," says Lehmkuhl, Moral Theology II, n. 37, "why the condition... is expressed, is rather the reverence due to the sacred rite instituted by Christ, so that the minister may protest that, if the necessary condition is lacking for him, it is not in his mind to make the very attempt of acting in the name of Christ; by which he may be further removed from every profanation of a sacred thing."

24. Observation. - The aforesaid rules hold for the one receiving just as for the one ministering; whence it is illicit to receive a doubtful sacrament, especially because one receiving in this way often inflicts great harm on himself.